Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen complained last year of the difficulty of finding an illustrator willing to draw Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. In September, 2005, as part of a “discussion” on freedom of speech and self-censorship specifically with regard to depicting Muhammad, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten commissioned twelve artists to draw the prophet, creating the current furor.
Mainstream strains of Islam forbid depictions of God, Muhammad, and other prophets. Historically, Muslim artists depicting Muhammad have usually obscured his face with light. It is quite possible to represent Islam in the modern world without clear representations of Muhammad; in 1976, Moustapha Akkad produced and directed The Message, which masterfully portrayed the early rise of Islam, all without ever once showing the Prophet onscreen.
Not surprisingly, much of the western reporting on the reaction to the cartoons glazes over the complex politics of the matter, reducing the story to the familiar stereotype of a homogenous, worldwide Muslim community being unable to appreciate-or worse, understand-freedom of speech. An unsophisticated view like this ignores the fact that many of the images are shockingly racist and stereotypical. The most circulated image, for instance, is a depiction of Muhammad with a lit-fuse bomb in his turban.
Many European newspapers claim that this is a question of freedom of speech. No doubt, free debate and criticism of Muhammad and Islam are very important. Muslims should be willing to receive and respond to such criticism rationally and reasonably. This doesn’t always happen. Often extremist Muslims attempt to shut down public discourse, evidenced by the violent protests that continue in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Palestine, and elsewhere.
But it must be acknowledged that there have been no significantly violent protests in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq, all predominantly Muslim countries. There have been expressions of disapproval by the governments of these countries, perhaps the odd scuffle here and there, but on the whole it’s been peaceful.
There is more to the reaction than simply Muslims silencing any criticism of Islam. While some are protesting the fact that any depiction of Muhammad was published at all, most are offended at the insensitivity of the images.
Many countries have laws that prohibit the use of freedom of expression in ways that may incite violence or promote hatred, such as laws banning the distribution of anti-Semitic material. The blatant, shameful racism and insensitivity in many of these cartoons reveal them to be undeniably provocative.
Claiming freedom of speech here simply blurs the real issue and polarizes discussion; it’s perfectly possible to discuss and criticize Islam legitimately without being so needlessly offensive. Right-wingers who provoked the whole “clash of civilizations” now seize upon the protests as evidence to support their anti-immigrant bigotry.
Both European right-wingers and extremist Muslims are working very hard to show that there can be no common ground. Instead of simply aligning with either side, trying to understand the complex dynamics of this situation will allow discussion to progress constructively and meaningfully. The issue is not just protecting the sanctity of free speech: it’s being responsible enough to know how to exercise it.
Preethy Sivakumar and Zain Shafiq contributed to this piece.
